So ladies and gentlemen , today the motion brought to debate is that this house believes that a technocracy is a better system of government than a democracy.So when we say "technocracy" , what do we mean? A technocracy is a system in which people are placed into positions of power based on their technical expertise and ranked according to their qualifications. These qualifications are not only limited to their knowledge of governance but also include their moral perception and decision-making skills.

I won't be defining a democracy because we all know how that works. By system of government what we really mean is the selection process for government representatives.

So my first Line of Argument will be "How we're upholding the idea of meritocracy for positions of power"

So to start off , you see that in the status quo you have several kinds of people. Firstly you have politcians who aren't necessarily equipped with the abilities to govern but just specialize in the art of manipulating people. Now how do they manipulate people ? They persuade people through false promises. How do we know they're false promises? Because ladies and gentleman, at the end of the day once they do get that position of power , they have no incentive of working for the benefit of society. So essentially they're attaining their goals through deception which we feel is bad because when they're not staying true to their promises , they're essentially not representing the people. What this means , that the true purpose of democracy which is to establish a body that represents the people , is not being upheld. What this signifies is that democracy itself is flawed . because the need for it is not being fulfilled.

Now on the other hand , what you have is a theocracy where people who excell and possess incredible skills to actually govern a country and have passed multiple tests to prove that their perceptions and views are beneficial to society ,reside. These people have dedicated their lives , time and money on understanding what could benefit society , for the greater good. We feel that these people who have the abilities to benefit society because of their knowledge and moral perception actually deserve the benefits of a position of power. Why is that ? Because unlike politicians who work towards influencing people simply for the benefits that the position would bring and do not actually work to improve society , people in a theocracy would actually work for the progression of the state and so for compensation of their contributions , we say that they have every right and merit the benefits that such position provides.

Now how do we know that they're actually going to contribute to the state ? We know this because they've been tested through examinations that test their abilities as well as their ideas of what would benefit the state.

So in our world what we're essentially establishing is fair compensation for people who actually merit a position of power for getting work done. We say that a society in which people work for the progression of society rather than manipulating it , is effectively a better society. We say that now because we've eliminated people's abilities to make uninformed choices , we have a better society and for all these reasons ,

I would like to begin by thanking side proposition for instigating this debate. I hope voters and all those who will be following this debate closely will find it interesting.
Allow me to perform my first role as first speaker of side opposition by repudiating some of the points raised y side opposition.
Side proposition made a case that was littered with rhetorical questions and to a higher degree, fundamentally flawed reasoning. The most noticeable of these is deviation from the topic by supporting theocracy as opposed to the form of government that is under discussion which is technocracy. These two are diametrical forms of government and there was absolutely no predicate for side proposition to inter-change them. Side proposition also made an unfounded claim that politicians are not upholding the interests of the people who have elected them into office in a democratic societies. Whilst I accede that there is some truth to this, I believe that all those who will be following this debate will agree with me that we would be daft to accept this as a phenomenon that transpires invariably. In democratic states that have proper systems to keep the elected officials in check, democracy has panned out very well, with results that the demographics of those countries are enjoying. Thus, this was an unfounded claim. More invalid points that were raised by side proposition will be rebuffed by third speaker side opposition

Our line of argument as side opposition is very simple yet inherently profound : How can we be assured that technocracy will not have the same negative results of democracy, only on a far higher scale?

It has been argued by side proposition that the technocratic leaders will be subjected to examinations that will prove their ability to serve in office. I ask you to question how pragmatic these exams are. What stops a person from deviating from the wishes of society and actions that better society as a whole after being appointed say, the president. The proposed method for selecting leaders is not very practical and from a logical standpoint it will most likely result in worse problems than those that have been cited for democracy.
Technocracy, by definition, does not account for character traits that are essential for one to be a good leader. As it is the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts, it will not only focus on how adept a person is at a certain task. That does not warrant a person to be appointed a position of higher office. The technocratic leader appointed under this system may be rapacious and this will inevitably lead to actions and policies that do not move society forward. The argument made by side proposition which poses a whimsical and flimsy threat to the above argument has already been effectively repudiated.

Let us not be so myopic as to think that all the facets of society are technical or require expertise to tackle. There are problems like hunger, homelessness, unemployment, lack of adequate health care and etc which while requiring some degree of expertise, involve many other essential processes such as decision -making, opportunity cost, risk taking and other traits to solve effectively.
Technocracy is unsustainable and democracy is the best way to run a country. Under democracy, the people have the liberty to choose their own leaders, which is an indispensable social virtue. The will of a minority is not imposed on a majority. At any rate, democracy is more likely to move society forward as the selection of the leaders and other important political decisions are placed in the hands of basically the whole adult population thereby allowing a very high number to be involved in the decision making process which logically allows more reasonable decisions to be made.

Alright so ladies and gentlemen , the only rebuttals we've seen from side Opposition were some unfounded claims that Democracy in all cases does uphold the will and promises made to the people. We say that in the majority of countries this is not the case. We say that corruption and misrepresentation to exist in the present forms of society and for these reasons this point does not stand.

Secondly , they caught us on a slip of tongue when we accidentally (several times) , mentioned theocracy when we really meant a democracy and quite frankly wasted a few minutes on a rebuttal for that.

Moreover they failed to tackle our point about how people in a technocracy merit the position of power more than those in a democracy because of the fact that they've spent more time , resources and dedication to understanding the problems of society whilst politicians have dedicated said time simply to persuade people to vote for them. We said that because of that , a technocratic leader is more deserving of a position of power than a politician in a democratic system.

They also brought up the idea that there are now counter measures against people who could easily switch agendas after taking the tests and easily use their position to benefit themselves. However , we showed to you through our definition that among the tests and evaluations present in our technocractic system would be a psychological evaluation. Ladies and gentlement psychological evaluations accurately predict a person's nature and what their actions might be , based on that , so there's absolutely no way we can not know how a person may behave once he's in that position of power.

Moving on to my positive case ladies and gentlemen , my Line of Argument is : -How society progresses the most in a theocracy.

So as I've shown to you before , in a democratic system , there's no way of ensuring how qualifies the elected leaders are to run the country and whether their moral perception and decision making skills are actually going to lead to progression. For e.g , in the case of Pakistan 5 years ago , the last government promised several things , but at the end of it's term , courts proved the government guilty of corruption , even though it had been fairly elected by the people. What this shows is that the people can easily be manipulated to vote for a government that does not necessarily benefit society in the best way possible. Now when we look at a technocratic government that has been evaluated psychologically as well qualitatively , we see that they have the ability to make decisions which are best suited to the society, even if the society doesn't desire that decision. Why is that? Because ladies and gentlemen , the people can easily be controlled to make misinformed decisions and when that happens , you have a halt in progress , you have disadvantages to the proceedings in society. However ,in a technocracy , you're removing people's abilitiy to make misinformed choices , and therefore , representatives will definitely work to improve society. For all these reasons , we are proud to propose.

To all those following this debate, you may have observed that side proposition has only done one thing effectively : rehashing points I have already crushed and bafflingly presenting them in an even less rational way. What side-proposition calls a "slip of tongue" is simply the result of a severe lack of comprehension of the topic at hand. Inter-changing theocracy with something as vastly different as technocracy is an apparent sign of a poor grasp of the topic we are contesting.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out a critical error that was made by side proposition which has gravely decreased said delegation's proficiency in this debate. Side proposition seems to be of the belief that my delegation thinks of democracy as a system that is completely perfect. We don't by any means hold that belief. This debate has simply tasked us to prove that technocracy is an inferior form of government with regards to democracy as I did in the first round and will do more strongly in this round.

Our LON: Democracy undeniably carries some flaws but these are much less than those that technocracy has. Further to that, the flaws of democracy can be easily addressed and rectified whereas those of technocracy are virtually incorrigible.

Take for instance a country very close to my own : South Africa. When the ANC was voted into office in 1994, there was a general improvement in the lives of native South Africans. However, after Zuma was elected in 2009, things went on a downward spiral and there was general discontent with the incumbent President. Zuma delivered on close to none of his pre-election promises. Whilst he has not been voted out of office, the South African citizens have brought him to task and positive changes are starting to occur. My point is that in a democracy, the citizens, who are the ones most affected by the decisions of office-bearers will have a say in what is going on in government. This crushes the point you raised about the elected people not living up to their promises to voters. In a technocracy, who's going to hold these people to task?

The psychological testing mentioned by side proposition is at best laughable. I believe you are all aware that psychology ,even in this day and age, is astoundingly inaccurate at times. More so when one tries to find out what the intentions of another individual are. Whilst I am a firm believer in hypothetical cases, cases of this under-thought and fanciful nature are by all standards deplorable. I do not mean to offend side proposition but this measure is infinitely worse than all those we have under democracy.

Side proposition seems to be of the opinion that politicians are inept because they spend time persuading people to vote for them as opposed to learning the technicalities involved in running a country. Let us bear in mind that these politicians will run the country with a cabinet. A country is not a one man band, crudely put. A wise elected leader will select a cabinet with expertise in the fields the individual ministers are responsible for. Being a leader does not require over-specialisation either. As being the president requires an array of skills such as good negotiation skills and impeccable decision making, the president does not necessarily have to be over-specialised.

Side proposition erroneously stated that we "failed to tackle" some of their points. I would like to reiterate that side proposition raised no points that would give us even a modicum of difficulty to oppose. We simply left these points untouched so we can decimate them in the 3rd round which should be used solely for rebuttal under the rules ironically set by side proposition who are criticising us for making the decision. I wonder if a debater who fails to fathom the rules of the debate they have set themselves is capable of raising rational points. For answers to that, look no further than this debate.

For the above reasons, we are commiserate for those who propose and we oppose with much elation and pride.